"While five per cent of people might criticise these new laws, 95 per cent agree with them... I don't back away from a tough stand on crime..." Bob Carr, Daily Telegraph 5/4/98

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police and Public Safety) Bill came into being to quench the insatiable hysteria of government and media-sensationalised "community" concerns over the reported increase in knife related crime, and specifically as a response to the fatal stabbing of police officer Forsyth. The broadening of police street powers mustbe viewed as the culmination of attempts to sustain the imagined threat of spiralling street crime, supposedly in danger of mirroring the United States experience.

The Police Association in a submission to Bob Carr waxed lyrical ‚ even ironically quoting Oscar Wilde ‚ on the social necessity of individuals submitting to police interference for the wider good. Carr, in response, addressed each demand and enshrined it in legislation.

Sir Robert Mark (Police Commiss-ioner in the UK in the 1970's) once commented that: "We can only win by appearing to lose." It is clearly in the Police Association's interest to manipulate conceptions of crime and public safety to garner support for increased powers that they don"t need.

While there are notable moments when the police bureaucracy attempts to give the illusion of neutrality from the state, for example, the police giving tacit support to the MUA in NSW and Police Commissioner Ryan's denial of a dramatic increase in crime. This gives the impression of the police as objective, reasonable and only trying to keep the community safe. But it is the very role of the police, in collusion with government, in constructing who is the threat and how they should be dealt with that this legislation demonstrates.

The bill resurrects aspects of the failed Street Safety Bill ‚ three is a gang ‚ in order to legitimise existing police practices of searching, dispersing both groups and individuals and demanding identification.

The main provisions of the bill are:

1. Increased penalties for the possession of knives.
As the law now stands, using a knife, or carrying a knife that is visible, causing a person present at the scene to fear for his or her personal safety, is an offence that attracts a penalty of up to two years in prison. The Bill adds to this; making it an offence to merely have in your custody a knife in public place without a reasonable excuse. Self-defence is not a reasonable excuse. The carrying of knife (which includes a razor blade) attracts a penalty of $550. For second offences the fine is doubled and there is a possibility of a year in jail. The bill also includes powers to confiscate knives.

2. Wider powers to stop and search.
If a police officer suspects that a person is carrying a dangerous implement the Bill gives the police the power to conduct an electronic or frisk search or search someone's bag / personal effects. Failure to submit to the search itself constitutes an offence. The maximum penalty for refusing a search is $550.

The "reasonable suspicion" that police base their intervention on has consistently been shown to be made on the grounds of age, race and class. The Bill operates to widen the reasonable suspicion test depending on the locality of the person; that is, being in a designated "knife crime hot spot" of itself could form a reasonable suspicion to warrant being searched by police. So, just hanging out on George St in the city could open you up to being searched by police (but clearly not if you were white and middle class).

3. Power to give reasonable directions in public places.
This division of the bill is reminiscent of the "move along" powers envisaged by the defeated Street Safety Bill and should be viewed as an obvious though underhanded attempt to resuscitate it. If a police officer has "reasonable grounds" to believe that a person is obstructing, harassing, intimidating or is causing or is likely to cause fear in another then they have the power to ask someone to move along. For the obstructing, harassing or intimidating behaviour, the person who is meant to be in fear doesn't even need to be in the same public place but just nearby. This makes the likelihood of a real threat more implausible: no-one even has to be present at the scene. It seems then, that these supposedly necessary laws responding to the community's fear of the hostile violent masses, is yet another legitimisation of discretionary police harassment of young people.

The legislation does not define what constitutes a direction. In doing so the bill places great faith in the good nature of individual police officers subjective notions of reasonableness. The coercive force that police consistently use in working class areas (intimidation, threat of arrest, strip searching) are now legitimised tools of street policing. Coupled by the supposed community will and new laws, police directions to move on will invariably constitute harassment at the least. When the material reality of street policing is that young indigenous and ethnic people are consistently intimidated and brutalised by police, working class ethnic and koori communities should be and are, outraged at their treatment. Yet it is the "outrage" of those classes who wield economic power, that social divisions are too visible for their comfort, that seethes behind legislation like this.

4. Power to demand name and address. A Police officer can demand a persons name and address if they believe, once again on "reasonable grounds", that person is able to assist in the investigation of an alleged offence, merely on the ground that the person was near the place were the alleged offence occurred. Bob Carr justified this broad power as necessary 'to break the gang code of silence', revealing his stubborn denial of the countless reports which suggest that there is no developed phenomenon of the youth gang in Australia. Carr prefers tabloid reports of young people who wear their caps backwards.

Much has been written about how law and order campaigns criminalise youth and how particularly, indigenous and ethnic working class and unemployed youth are overpoliced. The Police and Public Safety Bill is no exception in its effective attack on the legitimate need of youth to utilise public space. Of course, police have been using their authority to stop and search, move along detain without reason and brutalise indigenous and ethnic peoples for a long time. This legislation simply formalises the power of police to conduct themselves along the class lines they already do.

Opposition to the bill has been concerted. However, there has been a tendency (notably by the Greens in the Upper house) to accept the introduction of increased offences against knife carrying whilst condemning the "other" street safety mechanisms in the bill as being arbitrary. While it may be popular to congratulate the government for parts of the bill which deals with increased penalties for knives and to then condemn the remainder of the bill which deals with street safety measures, this creates a false distinction. There is no difference in making it an offence to have custody of a knife in a public place and then giving the police the power to search for knives. The search power is clearly the mechanism by which the charge can be laid and the justification for increased interference with youth. More importantly, such a dichotomy doesn"t recognise that the offence of having a knife in your custody is not about knives at all, but another way to allow police to justify, on their "reasonable suspicion", harassment of supposed "youth gangs."

A preoccupation with the formal manifestations of police powers must be read as informing and exacerbating the reality of policing on the street. As the rhetoric of community policing and zero tolerance policing strengthen with each release of crime statistics, it is apparent that police are not objective or neutral and do respond to the flurry of media (presented as community) hysteria about increase in crime. Laws which give police arbitrary and wholly discretionary power to deal with "crime" are reflective of how government attempts to maintain economic structures and subdue class antagonisms.

Its necessary to go beyond an analysis of the bill and heavy handed street policing as just civil rights abuses. Instead there's a need to probe the complex reality of a class based policing in Australia which compounds economic oppression through state sanctioned harassment. Merely inserting ombudsmanesque safeguards and accountability measures into legislation rests on the assumption that those who are more likely to be policed have recourse to such complaints systems or that such formal structures actually do operate to manage or mediate the harshness of the state against the citizen. Civil liberties are premised on a "flat earth" and potentially just legal system, i.e., civil liberties arguments fail to take into account how social divisions arise and how they are maintained by policing.

With the rapid decay of welfare and heightened attacks on unionism, education and the working class, policing in its manifestations as quashing of political dissent, as labour regulators, as street cleansers and agents in helping along gentrification becomes more apparent. The effectiveness of policing is often measured by the number of arrests or the level of intervention police have on the streets. It is in the interests of the ruling class, in the guise of that meaningless and insipid media tag "the community", that threats to their property, productivity and personal safety can be "cleared away" like dirty dishes by the police. The Police and Public Safety Bill attempts, pretty successfully, to reconfigure the debate away from why there are widening class divides and the antagonisms which accompany it (i.e., crime) to a simplistic and vicious continuation of managing conflict in class based street policing.

Justice for Young People held a peaceful protest and party in opposition to the Police and Public Safety Bill on Saturday 23rd May in Town Hall Square. This party included DJs, skate ramps and graffiti space in celebration of youth culture. The police attitude to young people having a good time in a public space was made clear by the brutal manner in which they broke up the party. They waited until it was dark then thirty to forty police on the ground plus 4 mounted police, police rescue, council officers, 8 police cars including 3 paddy wagons and a couple of plain clothes officers (conspicuous in their new sneakers) moved in. The police were unsuccessful in their attempt to take the equipment, but were successful in shutting down the peaceful party and generally roughing people up. Justice for Young People are planning to continue the campaign, call Kilty on 9281 5100 or Peter on 9514 2915.
 

There is widespread and deep concern over the high levels of violence and deaths in custody, in NSW jails, and I would like to suggest some ways by which the Department of Corrective Services can deal with this serious problem.

1997 saw a record number of deaths in custody in Australia and almost half of these (46 of 97) were in NSW; 30 were in the jails and 16 in police custody. In addition to deaths, there are reports of many stabbings and bashings. Here statistics do not tell the full story, because as with all jail conditions, there is great variation between institutions. The recent Criminal Justice Coalition tours of the maximum security jails confirmed what many prisoners have told us: Goulburn Jail and the new Remand Centre (the MRRC) are the worst. Conditions in some other jails are considerably better.

It is this great variation that forces a review of the structural causes of jail violence ã the actual living and working conditions within the jail. Prison violence can take several forms: prisoner on prisoner, prisoner on prison officer and prison officer on prisoner. (Unlike the first two, the Department keeps no statistics on this third category.) In my view, most of these forms of violence may be reduced by addressing the structural problems. Basic jail living conditions are at the root of much of the tension, violence and self-harm. The major areas I see as fruitful to focus on are the following.

1. Yarding
We have seen over many years how policies of strict yarding cause violence. Yarding is convenient for jail administrators, but causes great tension. Many people are thrown in together with few or no facilities, but a lot of mindless boredom. Crowding, deprivation and boredom breed petty disputes. Those in conflict with others, with drug debts, or simply being victimised, have no retreat ‚ as would be the case if they could return to their cell, or go to a sportsground or library. Many jails have abolished yarding, recognising that this greatly reduces tensions. However in the highly segregated jails (with large protection populations) or the unofficial "punishment" jails (such as Goulburn) yarding persists.

The first proposal to address the structural causes of jail violence is therefore to abolish the system of yarding where it exists (such as Goulburn and the MRRC) and to replace it with more open regimes which incorporate individual choices and options for retreat from personal conflict.

2. Absolute poverty
Another cause of conflict and potential violence is the absolute poverty imposed on prisoners. The vast majority of prisoners are from very poor backgrounds, with two-thirds unemployed. Most prisoners have no savings. Yet the minimum jail wage has remained at around $9 to $12 a week for the past 15 years. Meantime, prices have doubled. A pouch of tobacco now costs more than the minimum wage, and this can have serious implications. There have been several cases where prisoners have been stabbed or bashed for a pouch of tobacco, or a pair of shoes. Desperate poverty breeds desperate measures.

Therefore an attack on the absolute poverty of many prisoners, by raising the minimum weekly wage to $25, is appropriate. This must include non-industrial wages, such as wages for students and jail maintenance staff (sweepers).

3. Human contact
Observations and experience over many years tell us that attempting to deal with self-harm through isolation, observation and the denial of all possible means of hanging, has been a great failure. The notion of "suicide proof" cells should be abandoned. Even though such proposals came from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and from the Waller Inquiry, they are expensive failures which focus too much on the "duty of care" of custodial staff, and not enough on the psychological need of the distressed or depressed prisoner. Suicides have occurred in "safe cells", while there have been very few in relaxed-regime jails, despite easily accessible hanging points. We have also seen suicides and suicide attempts immediately after isolation and observation. So almost any sort of human contact is preferable to entombment in a pink-painted, video-monitored, perspex enclosed and suffocating box. Decent human and social contact is far more important than attacks on "hanging points". Therefore the appalling "safe cell" model should be replaced with human contact and peer support systems. These should be capable of being activated at any time of the day or night. The development of responsible peer support programs, in the area of self-harm, is also a valuable rehabilitative program, and might be seen as an extension of the current Aboriginal mentor scheme.

4. Strengthen grievance procedures
Frustration at petty injustices and an unresponsive bureaucracy can generate great tension in jail. The fact that official statistics on jail violence include prisoner-to-prisoner and prisoner-to-prison officer, but not prison officer-to-prisoner, simply underlines the wider fact that prisoners" complaints against officials are not listened to, and on the contrary are buried, trivialised and ignored. The clear lesson for prisoners is that you have to exact your own justice, including by violence. The irony of this is that most prisoners are held for breaching social codes, and are expected in some way to "learn a lesson", through imprisonment, that social codes are to be respected. However lack of a decent civil complaints procedure sends the opposite message. Further, unresolved complaints breeds legitimate resentment at injustice, and this often spills over into petty, or more serious, violence.

A clear charter of prisoners rights, and an effective complaints mechanism, would help defuse widespread frustration at and reaction to a system which is widely perceived as unjust and unresponsive. Such a process could be coordinated through the office of the Ombudsman, but also requires strengthened local feedback mechanisms, through elected Inmate Development Committees. Many of these IDCs are currently ineffective.

5. Certainty in placement and classification
The Department of Corrective Services is well aware that uncertainty in classification and placement creates tension and frustration, and that this can lead to self harm and other violence. Self harm takes place to prevent movements, while general uncertainty and denial of lower classification is a constant source of serious tension.

Therefore greater certainty in jail location and classification must be established, as a matter of simple justice but also as a violence prevention measure. A commitment to jail placement within case management and classification regimes, and to firm schedules of lower security ratings, could greatly ease this tension. Classification procedures should build in a presumption that all long-term prisoners (serving sentences of 12 months or more) will reach the lowest security rating (C3) and so be eligible for some form of prerelease scheme, such as works release or study leave.

However to bring about certainty in placement, overcrowding also has to be dealt with. For example an excess of remand prisoners, and subsequent overcrowding at the MRRC, has forced the placement of remand prisoners in other jails. Overcrowding must be dealt with by sentencing reform and expanded back-end conditional release schemes. However in dealing with overcrowding (and bearing in mind the universal policy objective of using jail as a last resort and reducing rates of imprisonment), expanding cell capacity (eg. through new jails) must be resisted.

6. Reduce the remand population
Associated with the overcrowding problem is the need to deal with and reduce the currently swollen remand population. Half of these 1100 people will not go on to receive a jail sentence (other than their remand period) yet they live under uncertainty and in the poorest conditions in the entire prison system. It is well known that there is greater tension in remand jails, and that the death in custody rate is high there. Reduction of the remand population through regular and frequent bail hearings at the MRRC (either by a visiting magistrate or by video-link, and after consultation with the Chief Magistrate) is therefore highly desirable. Bail law reform to restore a presumption for bail for all categories of offence, as is required by our international human rights commitments, is also highly desirable.

7. Responsible choices Finally, I draw attention to the need to foster the capacity for prisoners to make responsible choices within jail regimes. While this at times cuts across "control and contain" regimes, it is essential that responsibility be encouraged through access to responsible, day-to-day choices ‚ such as the preparation of food, choice between education and work, and participation in peer support programs. With responsible choices removed, people ultimately become childlike and irresponsible. This is one of the deep effects of institutionalisation.

A minimum standard of 12 hours out of cell ‚ in maximum security institutions, with firm minimum and reasonable times for access to exercise, education and welfare ‚ should be set and adhered to. Increased voluntary association, exercise and education activities, peer support activities and human and community contact reduce the stress and tension that underlies much jail violence.

With every new police shooting, the police assure us that it won't happen again once they have Capsicum Spray. However, as has been shown by the US experience, Capsicum Spray has not reduced police shootings and moreover is a lethal weapon in its own right.

In the US alone there has been over 60 deaths associated with the use of the spray. The US experience also shows that Capsicum Spray is most often used on unarmed civilians such as unionists and other demonstrators, in police cells and prisons and to clear the streets of homeless people. This is already also happening in Victoria and Queensland, where the spray is now in use.

What is capsicum spray? Capsicum Spray, or pepper spray, is a capsicum based chemical weapon. Capsicum is the active ingredient in the gas and is the chemical responsible for the burning sensation in chillies and the pain if it gets into the eyes or a cut finger. When used as a chemical weapon in gas form, the capsicum is dissolved in a solvent similar to that which is used in spray paint and then propelled through an aerosol.

The use of the word "capsicum" gives the illusion of naturalness and harmlessness. However, many naturally occurring substances are in fact lethal, witness arsenic. Similarly, capsicum is potentially lethal in its own right.

Capsicum spray kills people
Capsicum Spray has been linked to over 60 deaths in the US alone. When sprayed in a person"s face, it causes blood vessels to dilate rapidly, bronchial passages to construct, mucous membranes to secrete freely and eyes to burn and close tightly. Evidence shows that it may be fatal to people suffering heart and respiratory disease, asthmatics (approximately 10% of the population) and pregnant women. The pain associated with being sprayed is extreme and has been described by a Victorian Police Officer as like having 'two cigarette butts jammed into your eyes'.

Capsicum spray won't stop police shootings
Capsicum Spray is only effective over a distance of 3 metres. Police training instructs officers to keep a safe distance of 6 metres when confronted by a person armed with a knife, gun or blunt weapon. According to evidence given by Victorian police at several coronial inquests, police are currently instructed that the only appropriate weapon to use if confronted by a person wielding a firearm or edged weapon is a gun. The reality is that if police want to shoot someone, they will.

Capsicum spray will be used against those who police already abuse
The history of use of Capsicum Spray suggests that it will be used as a "crowd control" weapon against unionists and demonstrators; a street cleansing device against homeless; and another weapon of abuse and torture against prisoners, those in police custody, the mentally ill and other targets of police harassment such as indigenous and working class communities. The following examples illustrate this:

• in 1995 it was used against 200 unionists and their families at a picket line during the Detroit newspaper strike;
• in 1996, 400 people at an anti-Ku Klux Klan rally in Michigan were sprayed with the gas;
• in 1997, capsicum spray was used against a crowd of 1 000 people protesting the APEC conference in Vancouver;
• in 1997, an intellectually disabled woman who suffered from both asthma and epilepsy was sprayed while held in a police cell in Victoria after she pressed the emergency button in her cell and threatened to hurt herself or police with a plastic knife;
• in 1997, police in Brisbane dragged a prisoner from a courtroom brawl into an adjoining room where waiting police officers then sprayed capsicum spray directly into the prisoner"s eyes.

In summary:

New South Wales
On November 20 1997, the NSW Police Minister, Hon. Paul Whelan MP announced that NSW police officers will soon be equipped with capsicum spray. Police are currently undergoing training with the spray which will be issued to all officers after the tendering process for the supply of the spray has been finalised (expected to occur sometime in August).
Victoria
Victorian police are in the process of issuing the spray to all officers. This has occurred despite ongoing difficulties with the company supplying the spray, continued public criticism and a growing number of examples of police misuse.

In late April, police in the country town of Swan Hill sprayed an unarmed Aboriginal man and women despite their obvious willingness to cooperate with the police. On May 16, police sprayed a can and half of capsicum spray on a man in the regional town of Geelong, the spray had no affect and police subsequently shot the man. A similar incident occurred last year, leading to the fatal shooting of a man that police claim was attacking them with a knife.

Many of these issues were canvassed by a recent Administrative Review Tribunal hearing into police use of capsicum spray. The Western Suburbs Legal Service appealed a refusal by police to release documents regarding capsicum spray, including medical opinion. The decision of the tribunal on public release of documents is yet to be announced.

Sources say that, Ensign Laboratories the company supplying police with the spray has been told to relook at the formula they are provided, as police have concerns about the adequacy of the chemical they are providing. It is unclear if this is delaying the issue of spray to the police.

Queensland
Queensland police have issued the spray to officers at a number of stations. Police managing the deployment have emphasised they are not conducting a trial, but rather developing procedures for its use. They claim the Victoria police use and overseas use shows the spray is safe and effective and that further examination by the QLD police is not needed.

Just two days after announcing the sprays deployment. Police in riot gear attacked a man with batons and capsicum spray after he had surrendered a knife to police negotiators. The man had been self-mutilating with the knife at a suburban train station and had been in negotiations with the police for several hours. In a later incident police attempted to spray a man carrying two swords, obviously in crisis atop a statue in King George Square, the spray having no effect police knocked the swords out of his hands with a ladder.

Western Australia
The Western Australian police have rejected use of the spray. Assistant Commissioner, Bob Kacera, stated on a recent Channel 9 Sunday program that, "we would have to be convinced that it was effective. We are not convinced yet that it is. And we are not yet convinced as an organisation, that it needs to be put into our hierarchy of weapons". WA conducted their own trials of the weapon and found that it most of the time it did not prevent an attack. "We found for instance that if a person was using a gun or a knife or they were attempting to snatch your handbag or hit you with any other weapon, it was unlikely that you would stop them. It would take 15-20 seconds, in fact in one of the pieces of film we have its 41 seconds, before the pepper spray had any visible effect on the person using the weapon."

COPWATCH would argue that other police forces are aware of these facts, but intend to use the spray primarily on unarmed people. The WA police recognise that is the primary use of such chemical weapons, but claim they would prefer not to go down that route. Kacera to Sunday, instead "we use a program called verbal judo which we have found to be very effective "

Tasmania The Tasmania Police Association has been pushing for the spray to be issued to police for sometime. A spokesperson for the association publicly claimed the police needed the spray after anti-racist protests successfully disrupted a One Nation meeting in Hobart. Tasmanian police are likely to deploy the spray in the near future, stating they are "considering it favourable" after conducting a street "trial" earlier this year. The "trial" consisted of spraying one person and one dog in two separate incidents. When faced with criticism of the spray while debating the issue on ABC radio, one senior officer stated, with no trace of irony, "we had no complaints during our trial!"

South Australia
South Australia police have been using the spray for some time, but little is know n about its use. Police have reportedly claimed that they will not use the spray in areas where glue and petrol sniffing are common.

Northern Territory and ACT The Federal Police and Northern Territory police are examining the possible use of the spray
 
COPWATCH in NSW and Victoria are campaigning against the use of capsicum spray. To get involved or for more information call COPWATCH NSW on 02 9514 2917 or COPWATCH Victoria on 0418 140 387.

The importance of diet and nutrition cannot be underestimated. It has been well documented that diet affects more than the physical being, extending to emotional stability and mental capacities for example the ability to concentrate and process rational thought. One of the most comprehensive prisoner surveys* ever conducted revealed that the fundamental issue of "Diet and Nutrition" had the most resounding and prevalent criticisms, indicating that even the most basic needs are not being met.

The extent of the problem with prison diet is illustrated by the fact that less than 10 percent of males and females stated they were satisfied with prison food. Prisoners complaints were many and varied, the most outstanding being that 28% of the male inmates were concerned that the food is not cooked properly. Other common complaints refer to the lack of variety, poor quality, that the food is too fatty or oily, it is lacking in nutritional value, it is tasteless, and the portions they receive are too small.

It is common for inmates to supplement an inadequate diet by buying extra food. About one quarter of male inmates buy eggs, noodles, meat, and pasta/rice, these are not extravagant foods, they are basic items that inmates are requiring. Consideration needs to be given to the high level of poverty amongst inmates, many prisoners are unable to afford buying extra food, nor should they have to.

Other problems with diet involved those with special needs. Of the inmates surveyed there were 24 women and 54 men requiring special diets, for example diabetics, vegetarians, people needing high fibre or gluten free diets. Approximately 40% of these inmates stated they had encountered problems receiving their special diet. The most common reasons were that the kitchen forgets or portions were too small. Clearly there is a need for change.

The proposal Justice Action has put to DCS is that prisoners have the option of preparing their own food in their units. There are several different models possible, including cooking in groups, individually, or by a delegated few, with consideration given to each units milieu. Unit cooking is already a reality for many women inmates and a few selected men involved in special programs. The response from all involved, including staff, is of immense satisfaction and support for this style of food preparation.

After discussion with academics(Michael Woods, Prof John McDonald and Bashir Sumar) from the Health, Humanities, and Social Science Department at the University of Western Sydney (Hawkesbury) we propose that some of the benefits would include:-

- improving health status by receiving a palatable, balanced diet with satisfying portions and meeting individual needs;
- improving, or reinforcing living skills that increase independence;
- with the involvement of TAFE inmates have the option of gaining valuable kitchen skills that could lead to future employment;
- satisfying prisoners concerns re: food being properly cooked and hygienically prepared;
- reducing waste and government costs;
- providing productive activity;
- returning a degree of control to the inmate over their living environment.

We need feedback from inmates regarding your views and ideas on this project, correspondence can be sent to:

The role of the prison informer in Australia's legal justice system can be very significant to the outcome oftrials. While doubtless some prisoners do tell other prisoners of their involvement in unsolved crimes, and some may give truthful evidence on oath, "the vast majority of alleged 'confessions' are rubbish".1 Innocent people are in jail because of this. The interim report of the Wood Royal Commission defined Criminal Process Corruption as "the fabrication of incriminating evidence and perjuryä an exercise in naked power and a cynical disregard for the rights of the individual."

The official police objective with a target suspect is: